Jean Charles de Menezes

[wilmar13]

My feeling is that the reason why they took the cover-up approach is because they knew full well that it was a murder rather than a tragic mistake.

If that is the case, why not let the officer/s take the heat for what they did? Now everyone has blood on their hands. I guess it has to do with the controversial shoot to kill policy and they didn't want to give critics any ammo, funny how sometimes that can backfire in your face huh?

 

[TractorBoy]

If that is the case, why not let the officer/s take the heat for what they did? Now everyone has blood on their hands. I guess it has to do with the controversial shoot to kill policy and they didn't want to give critics any ammo, funny how sometimes that can backfire in your face huh?

I am in total agreement with all postees, who say that "heads should roll" and on the evidence so far, it does seem like this guy was killed in cold blood. But why, oh why do 3 or 4 people from the anti-Iraq war campaign get involved with the campaign to find the truth. It now means that if any Member of Parliament was going to speak out on the "shoot-to-kill" policy, their lips will remained sealed.

Let the Brazil police and the Brazilian government officials who have arrived in London, deal with and get the truth from the Metropolitan Police.

 

[stevebaby]

Yes but what of the other 50% who felt that it was justified to shoot a restrained man 7 times in the back of the head because of all the suspicious behavior: wearing a large heavy jacket, having a backpack, running from the police after they identified themselves, jumping the baracade, etc.; all of which never happened. Without any of the suspicious behavior is it still justified? I mean after all he did live in the same neighborhood as the address listed on a gym card of a suspect, and he was wearing an open jean jacket in London, seems good enough to me.

What say you Batesy (since you were the only one brave enough to voice a dissenting opinion)?


Yeah, there is a subtile difference, but I agree after thinking about it, it was murder, not an execution.

Yeah, I think the bigger issue than what happened is how it was dealt with afterwards. Rather than owning up to it, calling it a mistake, taking responsibility, etc., excuses and lies were fabricated, not by the officers involved which would be expected, but by higher ups who didn't want to take any heat. Add that to the: "sorry for your loss, 'but it was necessary', here is a million dollars" response; rather than saying "sorry for your loss, we will get to the bottom of what happened and do our best to prevent it from ever happening again", and it seems clear that those involved care more about thier own skins than truely protecting anyone from terrorists.

Legally,the firearms team will have the defence of "mistake",a valid defence under UK law. It is highly unlikely that they will be charged with that offence.Hardly surprising.
Morally - that's a different story.It was a massive over-reaction to an uncertain situation and the response by the police after the act is a bloody disgrace.
I heard that the unfortunate victim's family was offered 15 000 quid. Not much for a life,is it? Adding insult to (fatal ) injury actually.

 

[darkboong]

I heard that the unfortunate victim's family was offered 15 000 quid. Not much for a life,is it? Adding insult to (fatal ) injury actually.

That speaks volumes for how cheaply the Blair government holds life. Gotta wonder what price he'd put on his own head.

 

[Carrera]

The whole thing baffles me to be honest. I can appreciate the facial similarity between the Brazilian and the suicide bomber who fled to Rome, but the police involved clearly panicked.
I don't think either the Israeli or Russian police would have used these tactics.
The thing that has me wondering is how a Moscow-style theatre crisis would be handled in this country. I recall when the Russian Spetsnaz filled the Nordost theatre with gas and blasted the black-widow terrorists, people over here criticized the professionalism and efficacy of the Russian police.
I think that over here, with known terrorists involved, the police would more than likely be offering the hostage-takers free massages and increased welfare benefits as an incentive to give themselves up. Or maybe their own periodical to spread the message of Jihad.
But if it's some tourist from Brazil they shoot to kill.
The mind boggles.

 

[Jupiler]

I don't think either the Israeli or Russian police would have used these tactics.

No, I don't think those genocidal bastards would have killed just 1 innocent, but would have started a bloodbath all together. The Israeli's would probably blow up a few blocks and start building walls claiming that there might be terrorists. The Russians probably would send any 'caucasian' looking guy to a camp or just kill on the spot...good way to fight terrorism right?

What do you want to learn from the Russians anyway? How to commit mass murder on a population? How to patrol around drunk, rape and execute civilians? That's what you want here too?

I'm sure the British (and even Belgian) special services would have handled the tragedies of Beslan and Moscow better.

 

[darkboong]

I don't think either the Israeli or Russian police would have used these tactics.

Gassed the entire tube system/blown it up because it may have been used to transport weapons is my guess.

The thing that has me wondering is how a Moscow-style theatre crisis would be handled in this country. I recall when the Russian Spetsnaz filled the Nordost theatre with gas and blasted the black-widow terrorists, people over here criticized the professionalism and efficacy of the Russian police.

For good reason. That particular gas and ones like it are *specifically* not used because they are extremely dangerous and the dose is practically impossible to control. The use of that gas has been looked into in this country *before* that incident and was rejected because it was believed that mass-murder would be the result.

I think that over here, with known terrorists involved, the police would more than likely be offering the hostage-takers free massages and increased welfare benefits as an incentive to give themselves up. Or maybe their own periodical to spread the message of Jihad.

Unlikely, that's ******** strawman crapola - knock it off.

 

[Carrera]

I hate to say this but Beslan would never have happened under Krushchev. This is a simple reality. People these days knock authoritarian states but they forget how much crime, poverty and terrorism thrives in liberal states.
Under Krushchev people could walk the streets without fear of crime whereas Moscow under Yeltsin was swarming with maffia gangs and beggars on the streets. Now there is terrorism in Russia too.
This same feeling now ruins in East Germany where the days of the USSR seem not to be so bad as people imagined. There was free education, free hospitals and no unemployment.
Plus the Beslan terrorists would have been collectively dumped in the middle of Siberia without any fuss or bother.

No, I don't think those genocidal bastards would have killed just 1 innocent, but would have started a bloodbath all together. The Israeli's would probably blow up a few blocks and start building walls claiming that there might be terrorists. The Russians probably would send any 'caucasian' looking guy to a camp or just kill on the spot...good way to fight terrorism right?

What do you want to learn from the Russians anyway? How to commit mass murder on a population? How to patrol around drunk, rape and execute civilians? That's what you want here too?

I'm sure the British (and even Belgian) special services would have handled the tragedies of Beslan and Moscow better.

 

[Carrera]

People always used to tell me in Russia that the Brits are out of their depth with regard to Islamic terrorism and the whole mess they got us into. For some reason the people over here try to behave as gentlemen in a world where these concepts no longer exist. Where else can jihadists go over to Iraq, engage in war and then return to the U.K. to sign on benefits? This has been pointed out in Pakistan, Israel and Russia.
The Americans aren't quite so unrealistic. There is now a feeling in the U.S.that you can't handle jihadists and fanatics according to the Queensbury Rules. As for the Russians and Israelis, where terrorists are concerned, they don't beat about the bush.
Not one Russian spetsnaz was killed during the Nordost rescue operation. Sadly they failed to provide the antidote to the knockout gas quickly enough - a major blunder. 200 people died but hundreds were also saved and Russia was praised by Israel at the time (and also advised by Israeli security forces).

Gassed the entire tube system/blown it up because it may have been used to transport weapons is my guess.



For good reason. That particular gas and ones like it are *specifically* not used because they are extremely dangerous and the dose is practically impossible to control. The use of that gas has been looked into in this country *before* that incident and was rejected because it was believed that mass-murder would be the result.



Unlikely, that's ******** strawman crapola - knock it off.

 

[Jupiler]

I hate to say this but Beslan would never have happened under Krushchev. This is a simple reality. People these days knock authoritarian states but they forget how much crime, poverty and terrorism thrives in liberal states.
Under Krushchev people could walk the streets without fear of crime whereas Moscow under Yeltsin was swarming with maffia gangs and beggars on the streets. Now there is terrorism in Russia too.
This same feeling now ruins in East Germany where the days of the USSR seem not to be so bad as people imagined. There was free education, free hospitals and no unemployment.
Plus the Beslan terrorists would have been collectively dumped in the middle of Siberia without any fuss or bother.

I'm all for being tough on crime, terrorists, jihadists, illegal immigrants...in fact if it were up too me there would be alot stricter laws! But Krushchev? Why not Stalin or ******. Not much crime in Nazi Germany either. Of course if you send anyone who has a dissident opinion or just looks funny to a concentration camp crime will drop. Those millions of innocents that die too, well...too bad. At least the streets are safe!

About those liberal states? So you're saying Holland, Sweden, Belgium, UK, well the whole of the EU and USA, Australia, etc. are ridden with crime, poverty and terrorism and we can't walk the streets? I'll take that over the USSR anyday. Just go to East-Germany, Poland, Hungary...and tell them they were better off then! See how long you'll walk!

If you're beloved Russians and Israeli's are so good at fighting terrorism, how come they had 1000's of people killed through terrorism and we just a few dozen. Perhaps cause we don't massmurder people who later seek revenge.

Don't give me that **** that the Chechen terrorism against Russian targets has anything to do with international Islamism. It's done out of pure revenge. Read about the athrocities the Russians are committing in Chechnya...

 

[darkboong]

People always used to tell me in Russia that the Brits are out of their depth with regard to Islamic terrorism and the whole mess they got us into. For some reason the people over here try to behave as gentlemen in a world where these concepts no longer exist. Where else can jihadists go over to Iraq, engage in war and then return to the U.K. to sign on benefits? This has been pointed out in Pakistan, Israel and Russia.

To be blunt about it Carrera. If you love the way Russia and Israel deals with ethnic minorities perhaps you should --ing live in Chechnya or the Gaza strip for a couple of years.

 

[Carrera]

Kruschev was something of a reformer actually. It was Krushchev who denounced Stalin. He also stopped the U.S. invading Cuba (something that Darkboong would probably approve of on the quiet)
As for dissidents, Krushchev released thousands of Stalinist prisoners and down-graded the camps. He was a reformer whom the hardliners got rid of. This is why I didn't mention Stalin or Brezhnev. There was a difference.
As for Cuba, the Americans were asking for it by throwing their weight around. Krushchev made it pretty clear at the time no invasion of Cuba would be acceptable. He made it clear Moscow wouldn't be the first to resort to war at that time but he also made it clear what would happen if the U.S. fired on Russian and Cuban troops.
This is the kind of language people such as Bush understand at the end of the day. Had Krushchev been around there would have been no invasion of Iraq and, as a result, less terrorism would be directed our way.

I'm all for being tough on crime, terrorists, jihadists, illegal immigrants...in fact if it were up too me there would be alot stricter laws! But Krushchev? Why not Stalin or ******. Not much crime in Nazi Germany either. Of course if you send anyone who has a dissident opinion or just looks funny to a concentration camp crime will drop. Those millions of innocents that die too, well...too bad. At least the streets are safe!

About those liberal states? So you're saying Holland, Sweden, Belgium, UK, well the whole of the EU and USA, Australia, etc. are ridden with crime, poverty and terrorism and we can't walk the streets? I'll take that over the USSR anyday. Just go to East-Germany, Poland, Hungary...and tell them they were better off then! See how long you'll walk!

If you're beloved Russians and Israeli's are so good at fighting terrorism, how come they had 1000's of people killed through terrorism and we just a few dozen. Perhaps cause we don't massmurder people who later seek revenge.

Don't give me that **** that the Chechen terrorism against Russian targets has anything to do with international Islamism. It's done out of pure revenge. Read about the athrocities the Russians are committing in Chechnya...

 

[Carrera]

But the USSR was made up of many ethnic minorities and they all got along. O.K. I know thousands of Estonians and Latvians were sent to Siberia but that was under Stalin and Stalin was crazy.
I didn't say innocent folk should be packed off to Siberia. But I wouldn't lose any sleep if the fundamentalist terrorists were shipped off to hostile terrain to be honest.

To be blunt about it Carrera. If you love the way Russia and Israel deals with ethnic minorities perhaps you should --ing live in Chechnya or the Gaza strip for a couple of years.

 

[Carrera]

"Why not Stalin or ******. Not much crime in Nazi Germany either. Of course if you send anyone who has a dissident opinion or just looks funny to a concentration camp crime will drop."

That's kind of funny. I was laughing at that one. I think you're exaggerating things a bit here. I never said I supported Stalin or ******. I've never suggested whole groups of people should be packed off to Siberia.

I'm all for being tough on crime, terrorists, jihadists, illegal immigrants...in fact if it were up too me there would be alot stricter laws! But Krushchev? Why not Stalin or ******. Not much crime in Nazi Germany either. Of course if you send anyone who has a dissident opinion or just looks funny to a concentration camp crime will drop. Those millions of innocents that die too, well...too bad. At least the streets are safe!

About those liberal states? So you're saying Holland, Sweden, Belgium, UK, well the whole of the EU and USA, Australia, etc. are ridden with crime, poverty and terrorism and we can't walk the streets? I'll take that over the USSR anyday. Just go to East-Germany, Poland, Hungary...and tell them they were better off then! See how long you'll walk!

If you're beloved Russians and Israeli's are so good at fighting terrorism, how come they had 1000's of people killed through terrorism and we just a few dozen. Perhaps cause we don't massmurder people who later seek revenge.

Don't give me that **** that the Chechen terrorism against Russian targets has anything to do with international Islamism. It's done out of pure revenge. Read about the athrocities the Russians are committing in Chechnya...

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Kruschev was something of a reformer actually. It was Krushchev who denounced Stalin. He also stopped the U.S. invading Cuba (something that Darkboong would probably approve of on the quiet)
As for dissidents, Krushchev released thousands of Stalinist prisoners and down-graded the camps. He was a reformer whom the hardliners got rid of. This is why I didn't mention Stalin or Brezhnev. There was a difference.
As for Cuba, the Americans were asking for it by throwing their weight around. Krushchev made it pretty clear at the time no invasion of Cuba would be acceptable. He made it clear Moscow wouldn't be the first to resort to war at that time but he also made it clear what would happen if the U.S. fired on Russian and Cuban troops.
This is the kind of language people such as Bush understand at the end of the day. Had Krushchev been around there would have been no invasion of Iraq and, as a result, less terrorism would be directed our way.

Hey Carrera, tell us about Ol' Nikita's involvement in Stalin's Great Terror of the 1930's. I know you won't so I will. He denounced students and fellow party members as enemies of the people. Wonder what happen to those people. He willingly took part in the EXTERMINATION of the Ukrainian academics.
He built the Berlin wall. He sent the tanks into Hungary in 1956. Tried to put Soviet missiles into Cuba. Yes he was quite the reformer. I can see why you admire him so much. He is kind of like a teddy bear.
It is funny that he denounced Stalin for his crimes but was suspiciously quiet about his own involvement.

 

[Carrera]

Yes, but old Nikita Sergeevich had to survive under Stalin. The slightest sign of disloyalty and you'd be shot in the head or sent off to Gulag. It took Krushchev time to form an anti-Stalinist faction and begin reforms.
On the quiet, Kennedy came to respect Krushchev and Mr K actually visited Kennedy's grave.
The missiles in Cuba would never have been fired. It was a political statement used as a lever to protect Cuba. The idea was to remind the U.S.A. they had bases on Turkey that threatened the Ukraine. These were finally removed as well as the Cuban missiles.
There was no death penalty under Mr K. The Berlin wall was erected to protect Russian interests after they lost so many of their own troops taking Berlin.

Hey Carrera, tell us about Ol' Nikita's involvement in Stalin's Great Terror of the 1930's. I know you won't so I will. He denounced students and fellow party members as enemies of the people. Wonder what happen to those people. He willingly took part in the EXTERMINATION of the Ukrainian academics.
He built the Berlin wall. He sent the tanks into Hungary in 1956. Tried to put Soviet missiles into Cuba. Yes he was quite the reformer. I can see why you admire him so much. He is kind of like a teddy bear.
It is funny that he denounced Stalin for his crimes but was suspiciously quiet about his own involvement.

 

[stevebaby]

"Why not Stalin or ******. Not much crime in Nazi Germany either. Of course if you send anyone who has a dissident opinion or just looks funny to a concentration camp crime will drop."

That's kind of funny. I was laughing at that one. I think you're exaggerating things a bit here. I never said I supported Stalin or ******. I've never suggested whole groups of people should be packed off to Siberia.

What about jehovah's witlesses?

 

[limerickman]

I've got to say that I agree with Wilmar, dark and Jup : the British police action was unprofessional and unwarranted.
The lies that they subsequently told compounds the initial crime that the British police committed in murdering that young Brazilian man.

 

[rainrider]

Funny how people fall over themselves to blame the cops for a mistake while the terrorists ,without whom this would never have happened , don't even get a mention. The terrorists rack up another kill via the hands of well meaning policmen while we kick the cops in the balls for trying to 'do the right ' thing, ok they made a mistake that took an innocents life but put the blame at the terrorists doorstep ,you know them they're the ones that intend to kill people who they KNOW are innocent ,not by accident but on purpose.
The terrorists must me laughing their cocks off at how they sidestep any and all blame at this death while we all blame the people doing there level best to protect us from these blind, hate filled,frightened perverters of religion....

 

[EoinC]

Funny how people fall over themselves to blame the cops for a mistake while the terrorists ,without whom this would never have happened , don't even get a mention...

Maybe that's because we all already know that the terrorists are to blame for what they do. Hardly the most contentious poll - "I reckon the terrorists are to blame for the London bombings. What do you think....Yes / No?"
The reason the police are being criticised is because they are paid to protect the public, not execute the public. The culpability of the perpetrator is one issue and the culpability of those involved in systematic cover-up / denial is another.
These are valid points for discussion as how these issues are handled is a reflection upon the society concerned. There were no terrorists involved in this incident. There were police, there were witnesses and there was a victim. After the fact, there was the handling of the issue by the Police hierachy. Do you suggest that a soci